About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 13
CSPAN2 3
MSNBCW 2
CSPAN 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 31
Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)
" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morell told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming in on my phone. there were several valid intelligence and investigatory reasons
.i.a. immediately it was terrorism and it said al-qaeda in the official c.i.a. talking points. but after it left our hands, we don't know exactly who changed the talking points. brian, that's what everybody in washington has been trying to figure out, who, who, who did it? >> brian: the national intelligence director, james clapper, the same who went up to general petraeus and said, i really suggest you resign, says it was my office. he said that because the al-qaeda mentions by the c.i.a. in his mind, were tenuous and too tenuous to publicize, so cbs learned and we have confirmed, that we decided to tell congress that -- or susan rice a different story. >> alisyn: this is curious because the committee that's investigating this and the house said that they tonight remember that. in fact, that is quite opposite from what was testified to previously about who knew what when. so congressman mike rogers, who is the chairman of the committee said he finds this story officially, basically, out of the office and he wants to reinterview james clapper to ask about this, quote, new explanation coming out of t
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
that the obama administration decimated al qaeda. that's something that rubs these republican senators the wrong way. i will tell you what she told them, i'm told, inside the classified briefing this morning, what she meant was it was the core of al qaeda, that's what the obama administration has decimated. but these republican senators think she's lef the impression it's al qaeda in general. last thing i will tell you i was told she did say to the republican senators behind closed doors she regrets saying what she said because she knows it was simply not right. >> where does this go from here? obviously investigating intelligence officials as well, i imagine? >> yes. as i said, the acting director of the cia also in this room. and senators, republicans and democrats, are not thrilled with the information that they got publicly or privately. but the -- what goes on from here more meetings. she's back here, we believe, this afternoon, tomorrow she has a meeting with one senator, bob corker of tennessee, probably others. she's going to make the rounds and she's going to keep trying to persuade sen
explained she was using these unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack. and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn has also told rice tried to clarify to gop senators that what she meant was al qaeda's core leadership had been decimated. but gop senators argue rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: rice did not answer our questions. she did release a statement admitting her talking points "were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. while we certainly wish we had perfect information jus
interviews saying that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda. what senator ayotte and other senators have said is that was misleading because she knew in a classified way that al qaeda might have been behind it. so that is what one -- two of the reasons why at least senator ayotte said that she is troubled. and she said that she is still not ready to say that she will vote for her. not only that, but she's still -- she still has a threat to block her nomination if susan rice is nominated. >> and is that the end of it, or are there future meetings? is there going to be more consultation, or is that that? >> reporter: no, that is not that. that is the beginning of this for sure. we understand that the ambassador is likely to be back later today for more meetings. ted barrett heard from the republican from tennessee that he has a meeting with susan rice tomorrow. again, just like today's meeting. that was at the request of susan rice. she is definitely making the rounds. she's trying to explain herself. but at least with these three republican senators this morning who were --
on those sunday talk shows. why she did not mention al qaeda, not just that -- because we understand now that she didn't mention it because she was told that that was classified and she was given unclassified talking points and that's what she read from. the bigger question they have, we're told, is why she went further and said that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda and whether or not she said that knowing the classified information, which suggested that al qaeda might have been behind or at least an affiliate of al qaeda might have been behind this attack in benghazi. >> it will be an interesting morning on the hill. >> this is ridiculous. first of all, she wasn't secretary of state. you have critics who don't want to mention secretary of state clinton, didn't want to mention petraeus when it came to the cia. and they want to zero in on somebody who frankly was sent out on television who was not even over the ambassador. >> are we seeing here, basically, the end game on this? will this resolve these issues? do we think that basically we're going to expect to see her nomin
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
! >> stephanie: the original assessment of the benghazi attack was it was carried out by al-qaeda affiliated groups. he said that analysis was taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general review that they did not tip off terrorists to u.s. knowledge of the matter. we already covered this. general petraeus and now other intelligence officials are just -- you know, making it even clearer. so let's see. john mccain, lindsey graham, blah blah, have accused the white house of stripping for political reasons. the director of the c.i.a. and now current intelligence officials have said no. intelligence agencies changed it not the white house. i don't understand why we're even talking about this still. let's see. he said the intelligence community made substantial analytical changes with the talking points were sent to the government agency, partners for their feedback. there were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community. period. another anonymous official ec
calls from burma. we have dramatically changed. i can tell you again al-qaeda is on the rise and they're moving throughout the middle east and americans are -- we're going to have to pay a very heavy price for it because of the lack of american leadership. >> you know, michael he mentions kissinger from the '70s. he mentions baker from the '90s burma isn't even what the country is called anymore. is he totally out of touch? >> the last large scale -- the last figure in america who had an impact in israel was bill clinton. he almost got a peace deal. bush didn't do much. condoleezza rice failed to do something. and this is where the obama administration has leaved himself exposed. he never went to israel. i think now is probably not the time to get involved there but i think he's going to have to, in the second term, especially if these incidents show, they're going to try to do some middle east peace deal again. >> yeah, i mean you know, in addition to all of this which is a much more local conversation, we ne
a halt to it. now the president makes phone callscalls from burma? i can tell that you al-qaeda is on the rise and they're moving throughout the middle east, and we'll pay a very heavy price for it because of the lack of american leadership. >> you know michael, he mentions kissinger from the 70s, baker from the 90s and burma, that's not even what the country is called any more. is he totally out of touch. >> the last political figure-to-have any impact in there was clinton. bush didn't do very much. condoleezza rice didn't do very much. he has never been this israel. i think probably is not the time to get involved there. but in the second term, they'll have to continue to show that they're going to do a middle east peace deal again. >> in addition to all of this, which is local conversation, we need to think in a broader sense. there is no moral voice, and until we have that unquestionable moral voice with an honest broker as well as spiritual dimension, this is not going to evolve. >> it does the president see this as an opportunity to be the moral voice that tricia talked ab
to do with them. and they are the ones who removed any mention of al qaeda, not the white house. the president defended ambassador rice at his cabinet meeting today. listen. >> susan rice is extraordinary. couldn't be prouder of the job she has done. [ applause ] >> shepard: while the president has not nominated anybody to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. she has said she will not stay on for the second term. but the president has called criticism of ambassador rice outrageous and told her critics to go after him instead. that may be what is happening. catherine herridge in the d.c. newsroom tonight. catherine. >> thank you, shepard. rice has met with six senators, five republicans and one independent so far. she has apparently failed to reassure them that she is a responsible choice for secretary of state and not as one critic said drinking every drop of the administration's kool-aid. >> the president is going to have to make the decision about who he nominates to be secretary of state. hopefully it will be someone that is able to both show independence but have t
carrier waits for the body of osama bin laden. it's may 2, 2011, the al qaeda leader has just been killed. two u.s. navy admirals use code words to describe bin laden. the commander says fed ex delivered the package, both trucks are safely on route home base. the e-mails heavily redakted have just been released by the defense department responding to a freedom of information act washdog. a few days earlier that strike dog asked do i need any special religious ceremonial preparations. after bin laden's buried at sea, an admiral describes the scene. tradition traditional procedures for islamic burial was followed. the deceased body was washed then placed in a white sheet then a military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated into arabic. tipped up whereupon the deceased body slid into the sea. according to e-mails, there aren't many witnesses. in response to the question, any sailors watch the burial, burial, no sailors watched. and another says only a small group of the leadership was informed. less than a dozen total. and another indication of the secrecy of that pa
for defense of democracy reveals u.s. interests in egypt, yes, ma'amen and tunisia were targeted by al-qaeda, in addition to their raid on the consulate in benefiting and the memo reads, quote, while much of the public debate has focused on the attack in benghazi alone, they deserve closer scrutiny. they are related to the al-qaeda network. ambassador rice is still recorded adds the front run torre place hillary clinton, although democratic senator dick durbin said yesterday he's not sure she could get the 60 votes needed for senate confirmation and he would try to get the votes together, but it's up to the president to nominate her first. >> steve: peter, thank you very much. her offensive yesterday was when the going gets tough, you got critics, go talk to them face-to-face. instead of making it better, she actually made it worse. then she brought along the acting director of the c.i.a. and he completely botched it. they were asked okay, so who changed the talking points? the c.i.a. guy said yep, i did. well, they called about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the c.i.a. told capitol hill,
speaking out. james clapper saying he is the one who took out al qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we all believe here? joining us now is former cia covert operations officer mike baker live in boise idaho at 3:15 a.m. good to see you, mike. >> thank you. good to see you and thank you for the opportunity. >> what do we make of all of this after what susan rice has come out and said? she clearly relayed the intel given to her. should we expect a diplomat to do more than that. to go beyond and ask questions before relay ago story to the media. >> well, right. not just a diplomat but the person that president obama claims would be a perfect secretary of state to replace secretary clinton. ambassador rice is stying five days after the attack. now it's three mons on from the attack and we are still kind of around with the potential investigation. getting people in to testify. but ambassador rice is saying five days after the attack all she did, at the behest of the white house was go on the sunday morning talk show circuit and rely entirel
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
went on and basically defied what the president of libya said when he said al qaeda was involved. she said no. she continued to go back to this story that had to do with a spontaneous demonstration and about a bad video. and the bottom line is for secretary of state, you want somebody who actually can think about these issues, makes reasoned decisions, and asks tough questions. and i think she has failed that. and to me she has disqualified herself for secretary of state. >> here's what some democrats had to say about the rice nomination. let me play this for you, senator. >> i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said on those sunday morning shows. >> i find it mind-boggling that some of the gop senators continue to go after her. it's completely unjustified. and i can only conclude that having failed to deny the president a second term they now want to deny him the cabinet of his choice. >> congressman schiff isn't the only one suggesting that opponents are playing politics with this. in addition to that, look, you've been on sunday talk show, you know how th
facing the united states. he didn't say al qaeda. he didn't say a rising china, iran or north korea. what he said was the deficit in the state of american society. i think that's exactly right. you can look at questions of the budget. you can look at questions of infrastructure. immigration policy. but above all, education policy. this is the future. we're not talking about her physical infrastructure. and joel klein is someone who's given his most recent phase of his multi-career when he discovers the best restaurants in brooklyn, is focused on improving a lot of young people in this country. it's supposed to be the other way around. so i'm going to tell you how condi has been dedicated to this issue. a year and a half ago i called her up and said convy, i want you to do some thing for me and with me. she said richard coming to b.c. don't even start. i said okay. i said before the end of this conversation come you're going to agree with going to ask you. and she said no way. i said with the council on foreign relations and all of our time working on things like china and mexico and all t
on this network. we know the cia two hours into the attack that it was an al qaeda terrorist attack. we know the white house had drone footage coming to the situation room. we know the department of state, we know all of these different entities were aware of it much earlier than what had been initially indicated by susan rice. then five days later. five days later she goes on five national shows with -- if not intentionally, then the biggest bunch of mishandled information we have seen in foreign policy in quite some time. whether she purposely did it or not, she gave misleading information to the american people. the question is did she do it on purpose. rick: this is why so many republicans think it doesn't pass the smell test. she was out there saying what she was saying. now she is blaming that on the information given to her about it intel communities. but we know from david petraeus' testimony that he knew within a couple hoirts was a terror attack. >> the same republican lawmakers were vigorously defending another then likely nominee for secretary of state with the last name rice whe
knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the ambassador and clearly, the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia clearly that that information was wrong, and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong. yet, they've not cleared that up with the american people to date and have come forward and said it was wrong, including the president of the united states also parroting and talking about this is reaction to a video, the attacks in benghazi. and what troubles me also is that the -- obviously the changes made to the unclassified talking points were misleading but just to be clear, when you have a position when you are ambassador to the united states, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities for that job and that's troubling to me as well, why she wouldn't have said -- it's not just the talking points but it is part of her responsibility as the ambassador of a united nation to reveal
against al-qaeda and the enemy, but also about erstwhile allies and really mapping the human terrain. >> along that path there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came in, and then armed drones. tell us a little about that and why you and your team pushed for that. it was really a product of great frustration, because we had these human sources, these networks in afghanistan reporting on bin laden, on his whereabouts, and we in turn were passing this on to the policymakers in the white house and the department of defense, but we could not get the authorities or the resources to go and engage with lethal force against bin laden. this was pre-9/11. >> uh-huh. >> and they said we needed greater verification. so we looked at all types of technical solutions. we looked at balloons, long-range optics and finally decided on the drone, the predator drone. and can then we, sure enough, driven by our human sources on the ground we found bin laden, very clear video. we knew exactly where he was, farm near kandahar, and then we reported the intelligence. and the r
facing the united states? he didn't say al qaeda, he didn't say iran or north korea or climate change. he said the deficit and the state of american society. that is exactly right. you can look at questions of the budget and questions of infrastructure and immigration policy but above all education policy because this is the future and we are not talking about physical infrastructure but human infrastructure and joel is someone who has dedicated the most recent phase of his multi phase currier to this and when he is not discovering the best restaurants in brooklyn he is focused on improving a lot of young people in this country. so let me tell you how condi is dedicated to this issue. year-and-a-half i called her up and asked her to do something for me and with me. she said i'm too -- don't even go there. we have bet on many football games. before the end of this conversation you are going to agree to what is going to happen and she said no way. we at the council of foreign relations spend our time working on things like china, mexico, all the judicial foreign policy issues and we've move
. anybody looking at the threats, it would jump out at you that this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity i think it is pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust, and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? my belief is, not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as pres
. the dni explaining that the talking points as they're called were changed. if that reference to al qaeda was taken out. one to be an intelligence issue. i think what's happening is there is no final answer yet on everything that is concerned with benghazi until those investigations are completed, and those investigations, of course, are the fbi investigation and then also the state department's own investigation. so at this point it's not -- i don't think it's really getting a lot of traction. there's not a lot of change. you have ambassador rice coming out and saying that she raid the points that were presented to her by the intelligence community, but then there was one senator who said, well, she should have gone further. she should have investigated or questioned those. those are all legitimate questions. i don't think that they are going to be totally resolved. i think the questions are going to continue until there might be some type of resolution, you know, when the whole very sad and tragic affair is understood. >> all right. we're going have to leave it at that. i want to have m
ago from the former c.i.a. director who said i thought it was al-qaeda within 24 hours. it was edited out. they said, oh, those, i touched it, essentially politics enters in. if she says i went by this paper, what kind secretary of state goes by this paper and doesn't use all her plethora of contacts to find out what the real story is? >> steve: exactly. keep in mind, in addition to the unclassified talking points she works also had access to the classified. so she knew it really was happening. bill o'reilly was talking to john mccain about this last night and here is a little of their conversation. >> is she a dishonest woman, senator? is she dishonest? did she go out there knowing what she said was false and say it anyway? that's the crux of this matter. >> i don't think it was a matter of dishonesty. it was a matter, again, of responsibility. there was plenty of information out there, which she has access to, which contradicted what she said. if you're telling the american people, speaking for the white house, it was the white house that sent her out, off responsibility to make sur
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
al-qaeda, jon. jon: still so many questions left to answer. catherine herridge, thank you. >> reporter: you're welcome. jon: well, both senators mccabe and ayotte will appear on fox news channel earlier today. senator ayotte will speak with megyn kelly on "america live" which comes to you right after "happening now." and then on your world, 4 p.m. eastern time, neil cavuto will talk with senator mccain, his first formal interview since today's meeting with ambassador rice, you'll want to hear what both senators have to say. jenna: new concerns right now, the president and republicans may not be able to reach a deal on that looming fiscal cliff. the president meeting with small business owners at the white house despite signs that talks are stalling on capitol hill. james rosen is live at the white house and, james, just last week folks were saying there's some optimism coming out of these talks. why now is there a feeling that maybe things respect going as well? >> reporter: let's face it, jenna, a trained observer could be forgiving for serving the state of these fiscal c
that seemed to play down the role of al qaeda terrorists on the attack in benghazi, libya. that attack killed four americans, including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. rice maintains that she made it very clear, the intelligence information she had at the time was preliminary. senators are threatening to block her nomination if president obama chooses her to be his next secretary of state. >>> president obama and vice president joe biden will meet with mexico's president-elect today. pena kneeate toe has a new message. in an editorial in "the washington post" he said the u.s./mexico relations need to go beyond drugs and security concerns. topping his list, deepening economic ties with the united states. >>> the remains of former palestinian leader yasser arafat were exhumed this morning from a mausoleum in the west bank. many palestinians believe that arafat was poisoned by israel when he died in 2004. now, an international team of scientists will analyze tissue samples to see if they contain any traces of a radioactive substance. the actual cause of arafat's death was never determined. >>> th
Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)